I was considering it myself then I read in the Sig forum about member literaltrance saying that he was having FTE's with the 9mm conversion in his Glock. Seemed the ejector was not picking up the cartridge????

May have to do some more checking but me I'm going to wait. I have the Sig P229 that I converted from 40 S&W to 9mm with no problems using a Barsto drop in barrel.

Yup, that's right. I'm by no means a gunsmith but I do fancy myself of having an amatuer understanding of how handguns work. Please keep that in mind as you read more.

I had purchased a drop-in 9mm aftermarket barrel for my glock 22 (40 S&W barrel from the factory of course), with the obvious benefit of being able to practice at lower costs. Immediately I began noticing problems with FTEs (failure to eject, not failure to feed: FTFs). In failure instances, the spent casing would not eject due to what appeared to be a weak grip of the extractor on the casings.

To be clear, I'm not referring to the ejector. I believe the ejector [rod] is what pushes the casing out as the slide goes rearward, making contact with the spent casing at about 7-8 oclock from the primer, thus "kicking" it out. I AM referring to the device which serves dual purposes of holding the casing in place during feeding as well as a loaded chamber indicator on many handguns (the extractor, yes?)

Back to the FTEs (not FTFs), it appeared the spent 9mm casings would, in some cases, miss the ejector entirely because the casing would move around due to a weak hold of the extractor. In other cases, the spent casing was never pulled out of the chamber. In either event, there was little-to-no room for a hot round to be loaded into the chamber, thus the FTEs. I neglect to call these FTFs because upon new mags, 9mm ammo would load into an empty chamber just fine.

Also, when comparing 9mm Glock slides versus 40 S&W Glock slides, the distance along the breech face seems to be smaller on the 9mm (specifically, the distance between the extractor hook and the opposing breech wall.... draw a horizontal line over the firing pin hole on the breech face; that's the distance to which I'm referring). If this is true, this also explains the weaker hold of the extractor on 9mm casings when used on a 40 S&W slide. A certain amount of "play" would exist where the primer face of the casing meets the breech face...not a good thing.

Back to the point: 9mm Glock barrels in a 40 S&W Glock slide caused several jams. I suppose Sigs could be different but I am inherantly suspicious due to my experiences with Glocks. In conclusion I do not recommend it.

Added Edit Note: I should also add that I bought some factory Glock 17 magazines as I thought it might be a magazine problem, but this failed to reduce the FTEs. BTW, anyone need three like-new Glock 17 mags?

Stepping down in caliber and pressure you will have issues ..well..about everything. Think about this. The gun was designed to do what it does using the pressure of the round. now you want to stick something smaller in there. Being I'm not as Glock guy and don't have th pistols to reference I fon't know for sure but I know with other models the witch of the frame nad slide are a little more wide with the 40 than a 9mm. This would mean the slide is heavier. The recoil spring is heavier. and everything in there is built to work with the 40 round. You toss in a 9mm bbl. The case is smaller, the pressure is different. The energy is different. Even if the slides are the same everything else was tuned to the 40 so there will be several mods to make to have it take a 9mm and do it well. to me I don't want to do all that. I buy another gun.

This is from BarSto "On Glock firearms you can convert all of there 40/357 firearms to 9mm and do not need a spring change and usually do not need to change to a 9mm mag. Glock also has 9mm mags that fit the 40/357 firearms."

Just curious literaltrance - which 3rd party barrel did you get?

I use the BarSto 9mm conversion barrel in my Sig P229 40/357 with no problems.